Brainy Behavior

There are at least two big trends in social psychology, or at least ones that may great affect social psychology. Currently, at least according to Berntson and Cacioppo (2000), one of the fastest growing trends in psychology as a whole is psychobiology. This trend is also seen in social psychology. Another movement is that of the internet (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). As the legitimacy of the internet grew, there was more research interest in it and more interest in using it for research purposes. I will first discuss psychobiology and then the internet. I will finish with my prediction of where social psychology is going.

I think psychobiology is a growing area in part because of the many technological advances that are being applied to psychology (namely, brain imaging and computer modeling). Psychology is becoming a technology-driven science. I think that social psychology will all move this way because of the new ways to study the concepts of social psychology. In part, it provides new ways to research “old” topics, not that anything in social psychology is that old.

Researchers can now look at biological foundations of social behavior and perception. For example, maybe there is a certain area of the brain that is activated when people name racial stereotypes. Also, there could be a different area activated when people are asked what stereotypes they believe, if any. Maybe people who say they do not believe the stereotypes still have the same area of the brain activated as those who do believe them, but in addition they could have additional brain activity associated with suppressing those stereotypes. Knowing this would help us understand that stereotypes really are prevalent, but some people are just really good at suppressing them and don’t even know that they are doing it. I know this was a slightly vague hypothesis, but my point is that psychobiology has a lot to add the social psychology.

Read more…

The Crowd Looking at the Clock by Ms. Abitibi

Social psychology is the study of individuals within groups, or as they are affected by others. So, while groups are important and often studied, it is really the individual who ultimately receives the focus. It is different from other subdisciplines in that interpersonal relationships are taken into account. In other words, people’s behaviors, thoughts, and emotions are affected by their relationships to and with others. This differs from cognitive psychology, for example, because cognitive theorists typically are just looking at mental processes and trying to understand the basic nature of thought, without [much] regard to the influence that others have on cognition. I say “much” because social and cognitive psychology have had a long relationship so there is some overlap between the two.

Social psychology is different from behaviorism in that social psychologists look at underlying cognitive processes and behaviorists do not. Although, they are similar in that both look at external influences on behavior (after all, behaviorism is that all behavior is learned from others). So, really the biggest difference between social psychology and all other subdisciplines of experimental psychology is the focus on self and other influences on affect, behavior, and cognition.

These three main components of social psychology—affect, behavior, and cognition—are all areas of psychology where social psychology has provided key and keen insights. One aspect of the uniqueness of social psychological research is how often researchers get surprising results from their studies. First, I’ll address the insights we’ve gained from social psychology about affect (i.e., emotion), behavior, and cognition. Read more…

I’m going to preface my review by stating that the book I’m going to review is not directly about psychology; it has nothing to do with neuroscience. However, it has everything to do with interpersonal relationships and social interactions, which are two areas frequently addressed in psychology. I do not have any affiliation with The Arbinger Institute; I just enjoyed the book.

The book Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box was written by The Arbinger Institute. The work was derived from the ideas of C. Terry Warner, a U.S. philosopher. The Arbinger Institute is a management training and consulting firm that works with businesses and individuals to help them improve their businesses and lives. The 168 page book is easy to read; it is written in a simple prose like a novel.

The main character in the book is Tom, a recently-hired mid to upper level manager at the fictional company Zagrum. Throughout the book Tom mainly interacts with two other characters – Bud, his boss who is the executive vice president of the company, and Kate, Zagrum’s president. Both Bud and Kate take time out of their busy schedules to train Tom about “the box”, which is self-deception.

The gist of the book is that much conflict between people is based on self-betrayal and self-deception. It comes from viewing other people as objects, as “things” that either help or hinder our own progress. The self-deception is that we are more important than other people and that they only exist to help us (or at least not stop us) self-actualize (I’m using different terms than used in the book; the author(s) of the book are not particularly fond of the humanistic concept of self-actualization, by the way). However, we deceive ourselves when we think that if we want to have improved relationships with others – especially if they are strained – then it is others who need to change and not ourselves.

Self-betrayal occurs, according to the author(s), when we are not true to that part of ourselves that is other-centered; this results in self-centeredness. In the book the author(s) give an example of how self-betrayal occurs. I’ll summarize that example.

At night a husband and wife are sleeping. The husband wakes up when the baby in the other room starts to cry. The husband’s first thought is to get up and get the child before his wife wakes up; after all, she works so hard all day and needs all the sleep she can get. The husband’s next thought though is that he too works hard all day and needs to get up early for a meeting. “Why should I get up? My responsibility in this family is to go to work and earn money so we can live. I need all the sleep I can get so I can function at my job – I have a big project to complete tomorrow. [Baby continues to cry]. Why doesn’t my wife get up and get that baby? Doesn’t she realize I need to get sleep? Okay, I know she’s awake now. Why doesn’t she get up? Now she’s just being lazy. [And so on].

These types of thoughts often become self-fulfilling prophecies, such that all our our own actions and thoughts inflate our self-worth (i.e., we do see ourselves as good, hard-working people) while simultaneously deflating the self-worth of another (i.e., we attribute certain attributes to them – “lazy” or “inconsiderate” – and then much of what we see them do after that only supports that hypothesis). While this specific example has not occurred with everyone, we have all experienced similar situations. Maybe the situation is at work where you had a thought that you should do something but then didn’t do it. When it created a problem you were able to rationalize your behavior and blame someone else (“I would have done X had Susan done her job” or “I was just too busy with other things to get X done.”). Basically, self-betrayal results from not being true to what you [hopefully] know is the right thing to do. When we don’t do what we know is right, the normal human response is to rationalize and justify our action or inaction in order to protect our egos, per se. This leads to us shifting the blame from ourselves onto others. We start to view others as hindering our progress; when this occurs they stop being people and start being objects (in other words, people are viewed as either starting blocks or stumbling blocks – they help or hinder us).

It is relatively straightforward to see how this can lead to interpersonal problems – at home or at work. The problem is that we do not know that we are betraying and deceiving ourselves, so we continue to ascribe most of our problems to others. The author(s) further points out that even if we recognize our self-betrayal and self-deception, we never will completely be free of these behaviors; however, we will be able to reduce these negative behaviors and improve our relationships with others.

Overall, this book provides an important and novel way to approach interpersonal behavior. The overarching message is that we should not worry about changing others (or even ourselves! – but I’ll let you read the book to understand that); we should instead recognize that the problem lies within ourselves and go from there. One very creative application of this philosophy is how this is being applied in businesses to increase productivity, human relations, public relations, and even the profitability of the company. I’ll let my readers read this book to understand how this philosophical approach to other-interaction can help a business make more money.

One of my criticisms of this approach to interpersonal behaviors is that it is fairly esoteric and difficult to grasp conceptually. That’s not necessarily a negative; however, it means that most people will really have to study and ponder on the concepts in order to understand them. The book also only serves as a brief – but important – introduction to the topic, leaving one a bit unsure exactly how to implement this new attitude and these new behaviors in one’s own life (although, there is enough information in the book that an astute reader can understand enough to follow this method of interpersonal interaction). This is where the Arbinger Institute’s training workshops and seminars come in. Additionally, C. Terry Warner wrote a book called Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationships, Coming to Ourselves, which is a more complete description of the concepts found in Leadership and Self-deception.

I recommend the book Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box to anyone seeking to develop insight about themselves and their interpersonal interactions.

The human brain is a wondrous thing. It is the single most complex organ on the planet. It sits atop the spinal cord. Gazing upon the brain, one sees four main distinct areas – two roughly symmetrical hemispheres, a cerebellum stuck up underneath the posterior part of the brain, and a brainstem sticking out and down from the middle of the brain. Each cerebral hemisphere is divided into four visible lobes: frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital. The frontal lobes jut out at nearly a 90 degree angle from the spinal cord and are the largest part of the human brain. The temporal lobes stick out the sides of the brain, like thumbs pointing forward at the side of a fist. The parietal lobes are harder to distinguish. They are just posterior to the frontal lobes and dorsal to (above) the temporal lobes. The occipital lobes are at the very back of the brain, like a caboose on a train.

The outside of the brain is covered with a series of bumps and grooves. The bumps are called gyri (sing. gyrus) whereas the grooves are called sulci (sing. sulcus). This outside part of the brain is filled with tiny cell bodies of neurons, the main functional cell of the brain. Some people estimate that there are 100 billion neurons in the central nervous system (brain + spinal cord). This outer layer of the brain is called the cortex (which means “bark”). The cortex is only about 5mm thick, or about the thickness of a stack of 50 sheets of copy paper, yet it is responsible for much of the processing of information in the brain.

At room temperature the brain is the consistency of warm cream cheese. If removed from the skull and placed on a table, it would flatten and widen out a bit, like jello that is warming up. The brain is encased in a series of protective sheaths called meninges. The outermost encasing is called the dura mater (L. “tough mother”), which is thick and tough and is attached to the skull. The next layer in is softer. It is called the arachnoid layer; it adheres to the brain. Just underneath this layer is where cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flows. This fluid is produced in holes in the middle of the brain called ventricles. CSF helps cushion the brain as well as remove waste products from the brain. Underneath this is a very thin and fine layer called the pia mater (L. “soft mother”), which adheres directly to the cortex and is difficult or impossible to remove without damaging the cortex. These three layers of meninges serve to protect the brain.

The brain can be roughly split into three functional areas, each one more “advanced” than the previous. The brainstem (and midbrain), which includes such structures as the medulla, pons, and thalamus, activates and regulates the general arousal of the cortex. Damage to the brainstem often results in coma or death. The next rough functional area is the posterior portion of the brain (parietal and occipital lobes and portions of the temporal lobes). This area is heavily involved in sensory processing – touch, vision, hearing. It sends information to other parts of the brain largely through the midbrain structures. The last functional area includes the frontal lobes. This area can regulate all other parts of the brain but is essential for goal-setting, behavior inhibition, motor movements, and language. The frontal lobes are the most advanced area of the brain and arguably the most important for human functioning – for what makes us human. In summary the three areas roughly are responsible for:

1. Overall arousal and regulation
2. Sensory input
3. Output, control, and planning

Underneath the cortex is a large area of the brain that looks white. This area is comprised of the axons of the neurons of the cortex and subcortical structures. These axons are the pathways between neurons – like superhighways connecting cities. The axons look white because the majority are covered with a fatty tissue called myelin. Myelin helps axons work more efficiently and transmit more quickly. The white matter of the brain is as important for normal brain functioning as the gray (neurons) matter is.

The brain is energy-hungry. It cannot store energy so it needs a constant supply of nutrients from blood. However, blood itself is toxic to neurons so the brain has to protect itself from the blood through what is called the blood-brain barrier. This barrier keeps blood cells out of the brain but allows molecules of nutrients (e.g., glucose) to pass into or feed the cells. The entire surface of the brain is covered with blood vessels, with many smaller vessels penetrating deep into the brain to feed the subcortical structures. Deoxygenated blood must be removed from the brain. Veins take the blood out of the brain and drain into venous sinuses, which are part of the dura matter.

The brain works as a whole to help us sense, perceive, interact with, and understand our world around us. It is beautiful in its form and function.

Image: Bi Sang by Seung Ji Baek

When writing or talking about medical patients or therapy clients, it is helpful to describe their presentation. You cover things such as appearance and grooming, mood, openness, language, and thought process. How a client looks can reveal a lot about their lives, stressors, and their overall cognitive functioning. How open they are with you as a doctor or therapist is also important to note. Sometimes people are reticent to talk about themselves (which is very understandable) and very distrustful in general. Some people also don’t know how to talk about themselves, so they don’t.

The language people use also reveals their underlying cognitive functioning. Tangential language, disjointed speech, and slowed speech, for example can mean different things – a thought disorder, depression, acquired brain injury, and so forth. Related to language is a person’s thought process; this is apparent from their language but also in how they describe their problems or their lives.

When discussing mood, there are three general terms doctors use. The first is euphoric – extremely happy. Sometimes it is appropriate for people to exhibit this emotion but it can also be a sign of mania, especially if the positive mood was not seemingly triggered by anything. The next term for a mood state is euthymic, meaning normal, slightly positive mood. This is the mood that most people exhibit most of the time. It is neither positive nor negative (again, with a slight positive lean). The last descriptor for mood is dysthymic, which means depressed or having negative affect.

I’m going to preface my post by stating that the following post was written to help me think through the relationship between neuroscience and therapy. As such, it is a philosophical journey through some of my thoughts and is not even necessarily what I really believe because I’m still working on discovering what I believe. Thought processes like this are one way I try to keep some of my beliefs about psychology and neuroscience balanced. If I start leaning too strongly one way, I’ll start looking for things that disconfirm those beliefs and see what I discover. It’s a bit of playing the Devil’s Advocate with myself and a bit of philosophizing. Some of my friends and I used to do things like this in junior high and high school – having philosophical discussions where we discussed things and even tried to argue for things that we didn’t necessarily believe (e.g., classic topics such as supposing that this world and universe really aren’t real but are just reflections of reality. Again, that’s not something I believe but we would speculate). What does this all have to do with psychology and neuroscience?

The brain is what drew me to psychology initially. However, I vowed I would never go into clinical psychology because I didn’t think I would like therapy or dealing with people’s problems. Over time I discovered neuropsychology. Most neuropsychologists are clinical psychologists so in order or me to be a neuropsychologist, I had to be trained as a clinical psychologist. There are many things I enjoy about clinical psychology but therapy is not one of those things. Granted, most neuropsychologists do not actually do therapy, but we have to be trained in it. I enjoy talking with people in sessions but I haven’t been that impressed with therapy as a whole so far. Maybe that’s just because I haven’t exactly found the particular type of therapeutic method that really “clicks” with me. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is fine but so much of actual therapy in practice is just plain common sense. However, not everyone has a lot of common sense so they need some training in it. Part of me recognizes the validity of therapy but another part of me struggles with it. Now on to my main article.

The more I study the brain and the more exposure I have to therapy (giving, not receiving), the more biased towards the brain I become. What I mean is that we continue to discover more about the brain and as we discover more, the more behavior we can explain based on biology or neurophysiology and the less important I think therapy is. I’ve written about this topic in the past but wanted to briefly revisit it. This is somewhat of a second chapter to that post. Before I continue I wanted to expose one of my biases; I believe humans have free will. Even though some of my beliefs about the brain could be seen as mechanistic and deterministic, I do not believe that a strongly-biological foundation for behavior rules out free will. You can still assume biological foundations without assuming determinism. If, for example, you have a monistic set of assumptions that incorporates both mind – “nonmaterial” – and body – “material” – in one. [I have quotes around nonmaterial and material because mind is not necessarily nonmaterial and body is not necessarily material, well at least philosophically speaking]. Monism is a similar idea to a unified field theory (e.g., Grand Unified Theory) or the Theory of Everything for which some theoretical physicists are searching. That’s not what I’m going to write about and if it didn’t make sense, then don’t worry about it (I discussed this topic in a couple different posts: here {I linked to that post previously} and here). To summarize, I view behavior through a strong biological bias but I do not assume determinism.

As I said earlier, the more I learn about the brain and behavior (through research and observation), the more I lean towards neuroscience and away from “traditional psychology.” However, I still appreciate the psychosocial aspects of behavior; the nature versus nurture dispute will never be resolved because both are important. The environment is important  - all external stimuli are important – but the problem with downplaying biology is that it is the medium of behavior. What I mean is, everything we think, sense, perceive, or do is translated and transmitted through the firing of neurons. This means that all abnormal behavior, which is what psychologists often are interested in, originates in a neuron or related cell. Whether or not the cause of that behavior was internal or external is irrelevant. All events and stimuli are translated into patterns of neuronal firings.

This is why I think that understanding the biology of the brain is the best way to understand a person’s behavior. However, because we have an imperfect understanding of the biology of the brain, we have an imperfect understand of the biological foundations of behavior. This means that until we have a perfect understanding, we cannot ignore the psychosocial aspects of behavior; even with a perfect understand we couldn’t either because even if we understand the “translation” process we may not understand the origin of what needs to be translated. This is where traditional talk therapy can be most beneficial. However, I still believe less and less that talk therapy is the best solution for dealing with many psychological issues. Over time as we discover more and more about the brain, therapy will become even less important.

That is a fairly radical position to take as a student of clinical psychology – it’s more in line with psychiatry, or rather, I believe it’s more in line with neuroscience. I’m not saying that therapy is useless, I’m just saying that as we gain a more perfect understanding of the brain and how various chemicals interact in the brain, we will have less need for people to help others by “talking” through their problems. The better we understand the physiology of the brain, the more natural our pharmaceuticals will be. In other words, it will be easier to mimic and create normal brain functioning. Of course, many will ask, “What is normal?” That’s a good question.

Some may argue that with depression, for example, many people will have negative image and self-evaluations, which can lead to depression. That is true but it’s the classic chicken and egg question. Which came first? Did the negative thoughts cause the depression or did the person experiencing negative thoughts have a biological predisposition to those thoughts and depression? In other words, it is possible that biology originally led to the negative thoughts and not vice versa. This is all speculation but I think there is increasing evidence for this view.

The big problem with my point though is that at some point, it does become a deterministic system in that it’s possible that we could medicate away people’s free will. This is an unacceptable outcome. There would be a lot of power with this knowledge and many opportunities for abuse. That’s an ethical discussion for a later time.

To summarize, I think that as we (speaking in the collective) gain a more perfect understanding of the brain (and even individual differences in the brain) we will be better able to eradicate and prevent many or most psychological disorders. We could potentially stop schizophrenia through genetic engineering or other modifications. Again, I’m not addressing whether or not we should but I believe we will have the ability to at some point. This is why, at the moment I lean more towards neuroscience than I do psychotherapy. Of course, tomorrow I could [I won't] write a post that completely contradicts this one. As I said, this is a process. I think it’s important to argue both sides of the issue.

The New York Times has a very nice article about Frontotemporal demetia (FTD). This type of dementia is interesting, affecting personality, inhibition, attention, and language. It is similar to Alzheimer’s Disease but has a different progression and manifestation. Anyway, the article provides a nice picture of the disease.

As someone with many years of taking multiple-choice tests as well as a fair amount of experience writing them, I thought it was time to talk about the psychology behind them as well as offer tips to successfully taking them. I’ve personally never enjoyed essay tests (although I know that they separate out those who really know the material from those who do not) – I see their uses and recognize (obscure pun not intended) their strengths but I’m just not a fan in general. Maybe it’s partly because I’m much better at multiple-choice tests and partly because I’m not the fastest writer. I’m usually one of the first done with a multiple-choice test and one of the last with an essay test.

When looking at declarative memory (e.g., memory for facts) there are both recall and recognition components. Recall memory is like taking an essay test – you just have to write whatever you can about a topic. Recognition memory is like taking a multiple-choice test – the answer is in front of you (even if the answer is none of the above). The questions and answers serve as cues that can stimulate your memory. If you have good recall you should have good recognition; if you have poor recall you might still have good recognition (you can also have poor recall and recognition).

Why do some people just not like multiple-choice tests? I’ve heard everything from, “The questions are often tricky” to “I’m just not good at them.” Yes, multiple-choice tests can be tricky but good ones are not necessarily tricky. I say necessarily because what’s tricky to one can be seen as an important distinction by another. Good multiple-choice tests are also organized how class material was organized – that is, topics or chapters all lumped together. I know many people disagree with that point but the test questions and not the test structure should serve to distinguish between people who really understand the material and those who do not. In other words, the structure of the test should serve to facilitate memory by grouping topics and chapters together. Tests should also be given in the context in which material was learned for best results.

When I’ve written tests (as in creating them, not taking them {in case any Canadians read this}) I also tried to make questions test latent knowledge about concepts rather than manifest memory, if I can use structural equations modeling terms. For example, I wrote a question once that sought to pull out knowledge about where modern intelligence tests were developed (i.e., in France). So to test this instead of just asking what country they were developed in, I asked what was a possible name of someone who would have taken one of the early tests (a French name was the correct answer). While doing this has its own problems and limitations, it requires students to think, “OK, they were developed in France so I need a French name” or, “Binet developed the modern IQ test, Binet was French, so I need a French name.” Testing in this manner is an indirect way to get to the core knowledge. That was a fairly straightforward and simple example but testing in that manner (i.e., indirectly) overcomes some of the shortcomings of multiple-choice tests – it requires some reasoning and abstraction. All my test questions were not like that but that is a very effective way to test. I believe it’s also important to teach while testing. Sometimes this entails expanding a question to include a general statement about a topic, then asking something specific. For example, “William James was a 19th century philosopher who is often credited with being the ‘Father of Modern Psychology.’ William James believed all of the following about consciousness EXCEPT:….” Providing an extra sentence not only teaches but also serves as a cue. It should never be a distractor though (unless the question warrants it – for example, on a question about cognitive inhibition or the frontal lobes, then a distractor sentence could be included for astute students to catch the principle of it and be taught, or at least appreciate it). Tests should be constructed to teach. For me, making tests is an art. They should be crafted to help students, facilitate learning, as well as separate the wheat from the chaff. I’m also a firm believer in using humor on tests. The occasional distractor answer should be humorous or blatantly untrue (of course, it’s always funny when someone endorses one of the obviously untrue answers).

My test-making philosophy (and psychology) is based on differentiating the poor from the mediocre students and the mediocre from the good and the good from the great. This is a philosophy that students do not particularly like because it means that I try to write difficult tests. Difficult is not tricky or nit-picky (although it is good to have a couple nit-picky questions), difficult is well-written, requiring reasoning and deeper thinking. When writing tests I try to avoid both ceiling and floor effects. Getting all the questions correct is possible but rare (i.e., no more than 1-3 students in a class of 50 should get 100%). I try to write my tests to have an average score in the mid 70s. Having an average in the mid 70s basically guarantees that there are no floor or ceiling effects and that the test is not too difficult that it is frustrating to too many people. I’m also a big believer in mercy so I like to curve grades (I only curve up, not down). I also usually provide students an opportunity to go back over their tests, correct what they missed and resubmit the tests so they can earn back 25% of the points that they missed. This helps students on the lower end more than on the higher end, but the ones on the high end don’t need higher grades.

So now to test-taking strategies. Here are my Top 11 Multiple-Choice Test-Taking Strategies:

1. Work through the test as quickly as possible answering the questions that you can answer right away. It’s okay to think about one for a little bit but if you can’t get it within a little bit, move on. On longer tests, there are often questions or answers that will help you answer some of the questions you didn’t know.
2. It’s also okay to work from the end to the beginning or to skip around. Don’t skip around too much though, especially in tests structured by topic or chapter.
3. Always go with your first impression about an answer unless you are sure that you need to change your answer or if your first impression was just a guess. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not first impressions are more accurate but in my experience they are.
4. Look for patterns in answers. For example: A) James, Freud, and Watson; B) Thorndike, Skinner, and Watson; C) Thorndike, Piaget, and Ebbinghaus; D) Skinner, Thorndike, and Beck. In this case the answer is B) (assuming the question is something like which group of psychologists are all behaviorists?). Notice that Watson is repeated twice, Thorndike is repeated 3 times, and Skinner is repeated twice. If you knew nothing about the question you could use logic to figure it out. This does not always work but it often does.
5. Related the point 4, always try to rule out any answers that you know are not true. Then if you have to guess, you have better odds. This works one tests that penalize you for wrong answers (like many standardized tests do). If a multiple-choice test is designed to subtract .25 points if you miss a question, if you can rule out one answer then you should go ahead and guess (assuming there are only 4 answers) because then you will have a 33% chance of getting it right versus the possibility of losing .25 points.
6. The most common answers on tests are either “B” or “C”. So if you have no idea about the answer, guess one of those.
7. If there is an all or none of the above, take a close look at those. If there are not a lot of “all of the aboves” on the test, it’s likely that that is the answer.
8. Do not pay attention to the number of letters that you’ve answered: “I’ve had 5 Ds in a row; that can’t be right.” If you’re doing this you’re likely over-analyzing the test. Sometimes you are right but it’s not worth the effort to focus on (unless you really know most of the test material {and how the teacher or professor makes her tests}).
9. Don’t panic! Don’t be afraid to stop for a few seconds or a minute and clear your mind. It’s worth the effort if you are feeling anxious or too nervous or overwhelmed. Too much anxiety can ruin even a well-prepared test-taker.
10. Think positively. Tell yourself that you can do well. Tell yourself that you are a good multiple-choice test-taker.
11. Above all – PREPARE. Studying for multiple choice tests is different than studying for essay examinations. Read over all the salient material then read over it again (I find it helpful personally to read it multiple times quickly). Multiple-choice tests are usually about breadth and not depth.

Image by gillespinault.

Sir Frances Galton was not only related to Darwin he also did very similar research to Darwin. His most important contribution to modern psychology likely was through his efforts at quantifying behavior in addition to natural and physical phenomena (including the uniqueness of human fingerprints). Galton was the first person to really recognize some of the ramifications that Darwin’s theories had for understanding humans. He believed that intelligence was (largely) hereditary and that according to principles of natural selection, the most intelligent people should be the most influential in society even if their environment was not ideal; he thought that the most intelligent people were the most evolved. He was able to demonstrate that intelligence did appear to be hereditary by researching the families of eminent men and women. He estimated that preeminence occurred in about 1 in 4000 people but that people who were related to eminent men and women were more likely to be eminent themselves.

He expanded on this method by studying twins (a common method for understanding heritable factors today). He demonstrated that, even when living in different environments, twins more often than not had very similar propensities. Galton really was the scientist who injected the ideas of evolution into the study of human behavior and attributes. Most intelligence testing today traces its roots back to Galton and his ideas of individual differences and heritability.

New research published in the APA journal Emotion shows that people have different responses to killing and dying in first-person shooters. From the abstract of the article by Ravaja et al. (2008): “Instead of joy resulting from victory and success, wounding and killing the opponent may elicit high-arousal negative affect (anxiety), with high Psychoticism scorers experiencing less anxiety than low Psychoticism scorers. Although counterintuitive, the wounding and death of the player’s own character may increase some aspect of positive emotion.”

Link to the abstract.

Link to an article about the research.

I have not yet read the original article but it sounds very creative.